Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)
state solution to keep up the pressure. on the issue of a potential vote that the united nations it is our view and the foreign secretary said this out yesterday in some detail, the palestinians should not take this to the un in the short term and we urged them not to do that. if they do so we will have to consider the right way to vote. in an end point is this. we will not solve this problem that the united nations. this problem will be solved by israelis and palestinians sitting at the negotiating table. there may be dangers from pushing the too early in terms of a cutoff of funds for the palestinian authority and other consequences that could follow so in the end bets get negotiations going rather than discussions at the u.n.. >> if the prime minister wants to send a clear message to scotland and england belong together shouldn't he be doing his best to make sure the principal road from london is not going to come back? >> my friend makes a very attractive bid for the statement and the chancellor is not here but i'm sure other treasury colleagues have been listening closely. >
and finally, they were adopted when the united nations declaration of human rights was put in force after world war ii. thanks in part to eleanor roosevelt who helped draft the declaration after her husband's death. virtually every industrialized nation has taken a step to industrialize these rights and have some kind of health coverage for their citizens with some major exceptions are you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. tell us what you think about this programming this weekend. you can tweet us at apple tv and comment and send us an e-mail. booktv, nonfiction books every weekend on c-span2. >> up next, "after words" with james hershberg and the international history project. we will have david coleman and his a list work, "the fourteenth day: jfk and the aftermath of the cuban missile crisis." he is the director of the miller center and he details the what happened on october 22, 1962. president kennedy walked a fine diplomatic line to remove weaponry from cuba. >> host: david, most of us are focused on those 13 days back in 1969. you are focusing on the aftermat
to bring it up in november at the united nations after the midterm election. he been broadcasting this through the summer. kennedy had been reading about this and reading the reports. they conditioned going to the crisis to believe that crew sheaf is going to force the issue. that's the issue that kennedy keeps coming back to cuba. if you ask kennedy what is crew sheaf up to. and kennedy was talking about this. kennedy would say west berlin. he would not say defense of cuba. the defense of cuba angle doesn't come through a lot for the american. not really thinking this through. it doesn't make sense to them. it doesn't sound like the way you defend cuba. the way from the american perspective in 1962 to do a mutual treaty or send lots of cop vengessal weapons which is what they were doing. but not send long range missile to threaten the united states. it's funny khrushchev accept the tactical battle field weapon. i think kennedy would have had a harder time convincing the world they were offensive weapon. >> guest: exactly. the flip side of that is that that kind of deterrence angl
countries never attend school. less than 25% of the countries in the united nations have passed laws to even prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. studies indicate that women and girls in developing countries are more likely than men to have a disability. unemployment is dramatically higher for hose living in country -- for those living in countries with disabilities. this treaty will help provide the framework so countries around the world can help their own citizens with disabilities live productive, healthy lives. just like we did by enacting the a.d.a. 22 years ago, ratifying this treaty will send the world a message that meme with disabilities deavoring -- that people with disabilities deserve a level playing field. while it will ensure exclusion and access for those living with disabilities, it is also important note what the treaty will not come to the treaty will not require the united states to appropriate any new funding for resources to comply with its terms. not a single dollar. beavethe treaty will not changey law or compromise u.s. sovereignty. it will not lead to
immediate left the former head of united nations special commission on iraq, ambassador rolf ekeus is here with us from sweden. we have dr. ahmad sadri, professor of sociology and anthropology and the james p. gorter chair of islamic world studies at lake forest college, and when dr. jim walsh, research associate at the massachusetts institute of technology's security studies program. and with that come with asked each of them to take about five to seven minutes to provide their perspectives on three basic questions. with the new window of opportunity open for diplomacy, what are the next steps that each side can and should take to resolve proliferation concerns and reduce the risk of war, how might each side a just a respective proposals to get to a win-win situation for both sides, and what are the best, what's the best pass -- path for both parties to take to get there. could for instance, additional direct u.s.-iran talks help advance progress? and so we're going to hear from each of them for about five or seven and spirit afterwards will take questions from reporters first and then fr
. and that -- you notice the united nations does not have, does not give the nations that right, particularly because the lessons from the league of nations. and they, he -- the congress said they would gladly redesign the league. in fact, the european nations all said just ask us, we'll remove that. rerefuseed -- he refused. he simply, and the republicans knew that he was that rigid in his nature, and they just selected that, and they just played it to their success. very definitely. yes. there's a question back there. >> it's entirely possible that barack obama may win the electoral vote and may either lose the popular vote or the popular vote may be very close. what effect is that likely to have on his performance in the second term? >> the implication is the weakness that he has. and it's likely that at best if he wins, he will have a small majority in either the electoral college or the popular vote. so that would add to the congressional, the republican position that they don't have to cooperate with the man who doesn't have a mandate. and the mandate is the thing that would, would be o
people are very vulnerable. that's why as part of the national crime agency we are setting up a new unit dedicated to tackling this problem that will work across agencies to catch criminals and to take steps that she rightly speaks about. >> thank you, mr. speaker. leader of opposition a moment ago asked prime minister -- [inaudible] by 96%. he did not receive an answer. could ask the prime minister again, youth unemployment has risen by 96%? >> i've given the figures for the work program, 800,000 people taking part, 200,000 people getting worked, and this is again the background were the last quarter unemployment is coming down. the rate of youth unemployment is coming down and that more people in work. that is a record we can build on. >> mr. speaker, a free press is a necessary counterbalance to a strong state. the british people also have an appearance sense of fairness. therefore, we do not need to restrict the press. we need to focus on we press but the press gaza and unacceptable line. with that in mind with prime minister, will my right honorable friend look at the whole question
and then the united nations following world war ii is no more. they are in dissent of the magnitude of human tragedies. the population exchanges, and the damage done to the infrastructure of the country. in the material sense, and we are talking about the country of 2 million people, and more than 25 million who have been displaced. only by a week ago, the refugees that were 160 # ,000, lebanon more, and jordan even at the same skill of turkey. our refugees, apart from those who are displaced within the country itself, and the regime in damascus cannot add to the control nearly 70% of the countryside of syria, and its urban centers, damascus and other parts, are battlegrounds between the oppositions and the regime so the -- before this started, reach today, march 15, 20 # 11, we could never think that we have too much -- march 14, 2011, it's over. the syria -- [inaudible] the question we face in turkey, the region, and all over the world, what we know is that the religion ended, and yet the paradox is religion is in place in damascus so the question is when and how -- what day we will see assad reigni
to know to which degree to think as the united nation but for the 21st century to political power in the hands of the green lobby. >> well, the u.n. has been very encouraging of the green lobby and the screen job issue is not an issue here in the united state. it is an issue also in europe being encouraged by the u.n., encouraged by the meeting over the summer. but europe is also finding green job aren't all they thought they would be. spain has stopped subsidies for solar power under that doesn't work in sunny spain it's not going to work anywhere. germany has also stopped at subsidies which is more understandable because there's a lot of clubs in germany, even though the economy isn't cloudy at all. the u.n. has had a strong influence on this. >> yes, sir. >> chuck bradford. you are probably not old enough to remember, the jimmy carter gave lots of money, billions of dollars to alternate energy projects. >> i do remember. >> too many of those plants still exist is the question? i don't think they lasted more than a couple years. secondly, are you familiar with another jimmy cart
diplomatic issues. in 1971, the united nations in 1969. they were in the area and we have been re-integrating everything. for the first 75 years, we have never received the people's republic of china and the u.n. report -- they changed this position on the island. and to me, i don't want to get into that too many details. frankly, this is not the heart of the issue. china is trying to advance. there is an issue with japan. from japan to taiwan, the philippines, this is from the viewpoint of china. china has openly expressed their views on this in maritime security. and those are part of the reality. so this is a kind of comprehensive strategy to advance. >> that is an important point. what you're basically saying is that this is about power and the power -- china is clearly becoming more powerful. you are seeing lines being challenged. i remember talking to george soros once after he broke the back of england -- i'm sorry, broke the bank of england. what he saw as a hedge fund manager basically drove so hard against the wind that fundamentally the institutional power on the bank o
ambassador to united nations, go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. and that's troubling to me as well. why she wouldn't have asked i'm the person that doesn't anything about this and i'm going on every singer show, but in addition, the fact that it's not just the talking points that were unclassified. clearly it was part of a responsibility as an ambassador to united nations to review much more than that. [inaudible] >> before anybody could make an intelligent decision about promoting someone involved in benghazi, we need to do a lot more. to this date, we don't have the fbi interviews of the survivors conducted one or two days after the attack. we don't have the basic information about what was said the night of the attack, as of this date. so i remember the episode pretty well. our democratic friends felt like a john bolton didn't have the information needed to make an informed decision about ambassador bolton's qualifications. john bolton, the then ambassador, and democratic saying we're not going to go, we're no
in fdr's proposed second bill of rights, and finally they were adopted in the united nations universal declaration of human rights after world war ii. thanks in part to eleanor roosevelt who helped draft the un's declaration after her husband's death. today, more than 70 countries recognize a right to health or health care in their constitutions. virtually every industrialized nation has taken a step to influence these rights by establishing some type of universal health coverage for their citizens. with one major exception. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> tell us what you think about our programming this weekend. you can tweet us at booktv, comment on her facebook wall or send us an e-mail. booktv, nonfiction books every weekend on c-span2.
as their constitutional rights as american citizens, putting slave property into territory owned by the united nations. in 1857, the infamous dred scott decision united states supreme court affirmed the southern constitution. republicans in contrast never. no matter the supreme court. republicans would allow no more slaves in any territory. abraham lincoln was elected in november of 1860. a month later the united states congress came into session. members of congress put forth theories compromise from a critical portion of on some bits out with division of territory and most often was a proposal to extend some kind of dividing line westby on louisiana purchase other way to the border of california. now, after this rather lengthy preface, i am going to get to my main topic, why lincoln rejected albeit compromise within the territory. but there must be one thing more. i'm going to talk about three different men tonight. one of them all if you know, abraham lincoln and who he was and what he did. the other two are not so well known. for probably a number if you are probably familiar with henry clay, the
of their national perspectives we should consider. i think about allies as well with united states have been foreign allies and through steadying interaction and what were the elements to agree and disagree will help us to understand iraq war afghanistan -- of guinness dan. it is works like this that would help. >>host: "in buddha's company" thai soldiers in the vietnam war." . . day professor at the naval academy. thank you for your time. >>host: you may recognize him from a former book and he is back with a new book on the potomac river. where does it start and end? >> it starts in fairfax near west virginia a tiny little circle and it then that point* look out when the river is 12 miles wide and in between there is history. it is where our nation in europe. it also has the nation's capital. >>host: people think about the white house and the potomac river. why is that? >> they think of washington d.c. are the national monument why do they think of of potomac river? >> for those in the area is seen as an obstacl
the united nation's reviews much more than that. i [inaudible] >> before anyone can make an intelligent decision regarding someone involved in benghazi, we need to do a lot more for the state. we don't have the fbi interviews of the survivors one or two days after the attack. we don't have the basic information about what was said tonight at the attack has been shared with congress says that this day. so i remember the episode pretty well. our democratic friends thought like john bolton didn't have the information needed to make an informed decision qualification. john bolton the ambassador and democrats talk in their fields saying we're not going to vote, not going to consider this nomination until they get basic answers to our concerns. .. >> we are now live with condoleezza rice and former chancellor of new york city public schools. they will discuss america's education system and its impact on security. it is part of a event hosted by the excellence in foundation for education. right now we are listening to introductory remarks. >> the first african-american woman to
was the in the united nations where i got educate. i look forward to hearing from you. >> thank you. >> can i say it's been an absolute pressure to hear you. it was worth traveling coach class. [laughter] [applause] >> the ultimate. >> to hear you spike. >> the first time i ever worried about you. >> us a tear i have -- [laughter] but you made the point that idea massive when you are changing things. they matter in national security. one of the reasons that america won the cold war, it recognized it was a moral conflict as much as nick else. an american realized they couldn't win the cold war and the -- [inaudible] in particular if it still had a scandal of segregation. so winning the civil rights a precondition of winning the liberty across the globe. no i think looking from the outside if you'll forgive me, the same danger now. go to china and i criticize them for the lack of democracy. but they say yes, they are educating all of their people. in the middle east and i talked to people there on the edge of radicalism. they say look at the -- [inaudible] justices in your british and european and ame
and expansion of the territory of the nation went hand-in-hand. in fact, although the united states won no change in the british policy as a result of the war, the country did gain undisputed control of western land that had once been claimed by indians. these were lands that were previously settled by whites and cultivated insubstantial parts by men and women. now what this means is that all members of the nation's populace, no matter their civic status, no matter whether they could vote for against the president, could assist in the process of settling and thereby securing the nation's land. with no casual choice of words then when madison did not call on all the nations as citizens to support their country. instead, he called far more broadly to quote all the good people of the united states, as they love their country to exert themselves. those loving people included the nation's entire population, male or female, slaves are free, excluding only the indian inhabitants of the continent who continued to struggle for their own sovereignty. now what i would like to do in a time that we
, the republicans determination, too well the north into the unit that could win a national election without any southern support, republicans repeatedly condemned the south as aggressive, undemocratic, even un-american. with this party on the threshold of the presidency, southern sectional radicals known as fire eaters, those people who preached the gospel of this union, they took to the public platform and to the newspaper columns to proclaim that the crisis of the south was at hand. the south had to act immediately to protect itself from the hatred of evil republicans, cries of secession filled the southern air. now, this was not the first time sectional crisis had gripped the country, however. there have been several sharp sectional disputes prior to 1860. each of these, each of the major ones had been settled by a compromise. here i will point specifically to the four critical ones. first, the constitutional convention of 1787 in philadelphia. the missouri crisis of 1820, had to do with the admission of missouri as a slave state, the future slavery in the louisiana purchase which, of course
of the largest national organization of dreamers, united we dream. they will be planning their next effort, advocating for immigration reform legislation that will bring them and their families out of the shadows once and for all and give them a chance to earn their way to legal status and citizen thp in america. -- citizenship in america. one part of this immigration reform, the dream act is near and dear to me but i want to see comprehensive immigration reform before it is over. we know if we pass the dream act, it will help the economy, creating new jobs and economic growth when the talent of these young people, as they come out of high school and college is brought in our economy. in my home state of illinois, by 2030 the dream act will contribute $14 billion in economic activity, and dreamers would create up to 58,992 new jobs. i come to the floor to tell their stories. they used to hide in the shadows. they didn't want to talk about who they were because they were undocumented and afraid to be deported. many were deported. but i came to the floor to tell the stories of those who had
that would allow it to project force to the region without having to depend upon the host nation support. the second step that the united states reluctantly took towards assuming some of those same british commitments, came later on in the decade with the fall of the shah, and the iranian revolution in 1978 and '79. the u.s. had to rely on saudi arabia and iran in the aftermath of british withdrawal because of america's involvement in vietnam, and with the primary pillar, iran, one of the two twin pillars now gone, the united states had to figure out a way to project military power, since its surrogates would no longer shepherd after western interests in the region. we see here with the carter administration and the late -- late in the carter administration, the enunsation of what would become known as the carter doctrine. in his state of the union suppose in 1980, president carter said in no uncertain terms that an attack on western interests in the persian gulf represents an attack on u.s. vital national interests, and the u.s. will be prepared to use military force in defense of those
. >> thank you. >> coming up on c-span, live to new york city where the united nations security council is meeting to discuss the current middle east violence between israel and palestine. that is set for 330 eastern, again, on our companion network, c-span. tonight in prime time here on c-span2, author mark friedman discusses his new book, the big shift, navigating the new stage beyond midlife. he discusses how the baby boom generation is switching to new careers later in life. that begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, again, here on c-span2. >> there are many people who might even take issue with grants saving the union during the civil war. didn't lincoln do that? well, yes, he did, and i'm not going to see grant was the only person to save the union, but he was the commanding general of the army's dumping of lincoln's policies into effect. he was the general who accepted the surrender of the army of northern virginia that ended the war. if anybody won the war on the battlefield, if you could say that any one person did, and of course you can't. one of the things we do in history is generali
. is the author of more than a dozen books, including first a pitcher's history of the united states, which he co-authored. other topics on which is written include national defense, history and historiography in the u.s. economy. a television series based on the united states is currently in development as well. we're pleased to welcome to hear about his newest book, a pitcher's history of the modern world, which in this case is going to be from 1898, two just after the second world war. please join me in welcoming larry schweikart. [applause] >> well, thanks so much to heritage foundation for inviting me here. it's really an honor and one that i wish my father was alive to see. heritage is one of those great bastian said liberty in a swelling sea of collect this and. you probably didn't know that you are getting somebody here who was the previous rock drummer. this later became significant learning -- as a learning experience when i began working on this film. but all along, my experience and about and were pretty informative. sma students i know about communism because i was in a rock band. we
and freddie still are responsible for most new home mortgages in the united states, so we have nationalized a huge part of our mortgage industry. how did we get to this point? it was not on purpose. it was really more of an accident and it was a bipartisan accident. let's go back to the 19 30s. about a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. around half of all mortgage debt was in default. housing starts were down about 90%. so when roosevelt became president in 1933 the top priority was to get people back to work. it sounds kind of familiar. building houses would be a great way to do that, but to build houses you need bank loans and banks were not really in the mood to gamble on real estate. so the government would try to make the banks feel more secure. the housing act of 1934 created the federal housing administration, the fha. it provides insurance to banks so that they know they will get their money back. that even with the fha, tanks still might feel nervous. they might want somebody to buy those mortgages from them so in that same housing act of 1934, congress made provisions for a
, with the wrong skin color? the beauty of our constitution is that it gives everyone in the united states basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their peers. that is what makes this nation great. as justice sandra day o'connor wrote for the plurality in hamdi v. rumsfeld, and i vote -- "as critical as the government's interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the united states during ongoing international conflict, history and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat." i mean, just think of it. if you were of the wrong race and you were in a place where there was an attack, you were picked up, you could be held without charge or trial month after month, year after year, that's wrong. experiences over the last decade prove the country is safer now than before the 9/11 attacks. terrorists are behind bars. dangerous plots have been thwarted. the system is working, and hopefully improving each day. s
but the united states of america is held together by a great national creed not by ethnicity or blood or religion, our national creed is an aspiration will narrative that it doesn't matter where you came from. it matters where you are going. you can come from homeless circumstances and do great things and the only way that is true is if you have access to a high-quality education and if it ever becomes the case as it is increasingly now, as i said many times i can look at your zip code and the social fabric of this country has no chance to hold together and we will be picked one against the other and those who are capable and those who are not. those who are employable and those who are not. i can assure you that you might not be able to control your circumstances but you can control your response to your circumstances. that will no longer be the way americans think about themselves or each other and that gives way to entitlements. at core, the real problem for us in national security is not just our competitiveness abroad, the great national narrative, this cohesion that has made us the country
want to think how random they can get he realizes the seating arrangement at the republican national committee is going to play a crucial role in determining the nomination for the republicans and the next president of the united states. >> host: okay we will be back after a brief break. >> host: we left ourselves at the chicago convention and 1860's and we are talking about lincoln as an extreme leader as an unfiltered leader coming out of left field and you set the scene on his obscurity but he has some advantages so tell us what effect this has as the convention plays out. >> guest: his team is able to recruit supporters of cross illinois and the way they recruit them is their testing them on how weld their voices are and they bring them into chicago on discounted tickets since he was a real return he could arrange that and the print fake tickets for the convention and a stack the rafters with these lincoln supporters so every time his name is mentioned the supporters start yelling and screaming and shouting their support so much that the windows of the hall at cliche in response
/11, 2001, and talk to a nations, of very international crowd and ask what they thought of the united states, admired the united states and they resented the united states because it that time they didn't believe there were any boundaries to what could be done. that looks at the united states as the most innovative place in the world, constantly pull rabbits out of the hat and reinvent itself. go around world today facie a nation constrained, tied down, exhausted, limited, militarily overreaching, economically--even talking to tim geithner, can you go around and tell other economies what to do when you're in a glass house? it has been real limiting. when you look at barack obama's first meeting with angela merkel in london when the global economy was on fire is interesting. she laid down the gauntlet. we are not going to play by your rules. we are not going to spend like you are telling us to do. it has been interesting as a superpower to look at all limits we have even influencing a nation like germany. and yet brussels i asked to you think america has the same growth we once had that could
there was this notion that france and england would be a united union. they weren't calling it a country, but a national union. it would have two parliaments but one war cabinet, and every citizen of france would be a citizen of britain. churchill was a little skeptical at first, but then he went to the cabinet, and he said we can't be accused here of not having imagination, so let's, let's propose this. and it actually was, it was presented to the french cabinet but not all that seriously. by the time it came up, it was really too late. so france conducted a armistice with the germans and came to what we know as the agreement that sets up the government in the southern part of the country. the germans occupied the northern part, the northern two-thirds of the country along with all of the atlantic coast. and -- >> host: and, essentially, left in place the lower third, correct? >> guest: they wanted a government to govern that part of the country and also the colonies in north africa and southeast asia. they didn't want to be distracted by that. so part of the agreement was you set up this government --
nation. in 1857, there was an infamous decision and the united states supreme court confirmed the constitutional review. republicans, in contrast, never. the republicans would allow no more slaves in any territory. abraham lincoln was elected in november of 1860. a month later, the united states congress came into session. members of congress put forth various compromise proposals. a critical portion of all dealt with the divisions of territories. most often there was a proposal tuesday extended west beyond the louisiana purchase all the way to the border of california. now, after this preface, i'm going to get to my main point. when lincoln rejected all compromise with regard to territories. but there must be something more. i'm going to talk about three different men tonight. one of them, abraham lincoln, you know what he was and what he did. one of two americans, so well-known. the great kentucky statesman, henry clay, and william henry seward of new york state and prior to lincoln's nomination for the presidency was by far the most notable and well-known republican in the
to talk about. the defense budget is that about $800 billion a year. the united states commitment to the military budget is greater than the military budget of the next 10 highest military spending nations combined. those 10 nations together -- together spend about 50 -- 450 billion. we spent 800 billion. now here is the trick. our money is heavily invested in sophisticated military hardware. very sophisticated pieces of equipment, which truthfully impact our domestic economy. but the truth of the matter is the discussion about budgets from having put many, many budgets together is not a discussion just about money. it is a discussion about priorities and values. and we have to determine, you know, to me when you talk about what the deal is to be made, to sequester includes deep cuts in the military. and many on the right and mini and communities with error bars, military contractors that employ a lot of people will art in to avoid this military cuts. what we have to say is the nation as it is important that we prioritize education, infrastructure right alongside of trying to have
, that the united states had the responsibility to protect the independence of nations from communistic russia. this may south vietnam. now, kennedy had raised troop levels. i won't go into all the things that truman and eisenhower did, but right alone, we are very heavily involved in protect and south vietnam and johnston believed that these prior commitments committed him. he also is a strong cold war era. he is to comment on how the young people protesting simply didn't understand communism because they'd never grown up or had to fight world war ii. they didn't know what appeasement meant in munich, you know, chamberlain forth. the united states must keep its commitments. it was johnson's great misfortune when you either had to fish. kennedy didn't have to do it. >> host: you are referring of course to the nominal theory. >> guest: is a very good cold warrior, but i never bought the domino theory. because this has always made every disappeared histories that this is america thinking that you put up a solid wall. not just united front, the sheer method is just no opposition on these issues a
teaching about the same time. for women of color and the entire united states teaching the, two blacks, one nation, one latina. and that is not so long ago. a few years afterwards i went into the classroom and having mostly men in a classroom, most of whom on election night before the election was decided i had to turn us in a classroom and was filled with that romney's. i woke up to a brand-new world. this is the way law schools looked when i was coming out. when you first started teaching to the woman, when he lived in massachusetts he didn't just say professor, he said blake though you could really profess anything. i really rocketed me back. so i think in addition to the mockery generally and the electorate, in addition to the demeaning of women generally, you sort of have a celebrated when were hired, but it's also a double whammy in a political setting. >> i'm in washington. it's an interesting place. i love d.c., but when you look at the washington that we are talking about, when you actually go into the halls of congress and have a visual, the next time you look at something going o
is the negotiator. he gives part of the treaty and then he comes back to united states and the senate has to ratify it. their 96 centers at the time in 80 of them have said that they want the united states to ratify the treaty and join the league of nations under some conditions. 80 is well more than enough to make the ratification. >> host: they need two-thirds. >> guest: two-thirds, yes. ratification is not hard. you need 64 or 65. the problem is the senate republicans led by henry cabot lodge who wilson had known for many decades, they don't want to give wilson a try and. some of them are opposed to joining the treaty and they have reservations about the sovereignty. many of them are willing to join the treaty with a condition. these reservations are not huge. the british for example will eventually say they have no problem with the treaty. it's not an obstacle for them. >> host: they are not deal breakers. >> guest: they shouldn't be deal breakers. very few people view them as deal breakers. henry cabot lodge knows wilson and lodge says wilson, you know he might have reservations on the princip
and fall of circuit city," and to some degree, there's uncomfortable truths when you think about nations and companies, there's rise and fall stories r and hopefully the united states is not on the fall side of this, plu political campaigns are a lousy time to think about the hard truths of what's happening. one of the hard truths about the panel is we're five white guys. [laughter] we try to figure out how we could divvy this. we're four tall guys and doug. [laughter] we're very well aware of this. you would not believe how busy -- we did have a more diverse crowd, but for all of those e-mailing saying we want to bill you in, a conversation, we know. it's there. what i want to get into today and talk a little about are the strategic economic choices facing the nation, and what's that mean? in particular, when you talk about strategy in economics, is there something more funmental about the way the united states is positioned in the world, what its choices are. michael porter here with us, michael, wave so they know who you are. we are not very diverse. [laughter] he's a distinguished pr
believed -- lincoln fully believed if there were two nations in the middle of the north american continent, this war would not be the last. they said the reason the united states had not been written by the wars that affected europe for centuries was there was a single country. once there are two countries in north america, they will go at it again so this war would not be the last and in the long run even 600,000 lives, this might be a bargaining human suffering. >> questions from the audience? we will start over here. [inaudible] >> is there a microphone he could use? i am sorry. >> is the microphone working? good deal. we are all talking, we were wondering when you were going to get to the part about what we all believe in the southern part of the united states, how he was a drunk and a corrupt politician. you are contradicting much of that. you came to different conclusions, did you? >> i did the. i will give you grant's reputation. for years he was a drunk and a butcher and his administration was one of the most corrupt in american history. historians rating presidents until the begin
in the sense that it gives middle easterners of whatever background and awareness that the united states has a humanitarian presence in the middle east. it has not always been about the cultivation of military forces for national security. americans have been there for 150 years giving to the nation in practical and beneficial ways for the people, not just for us. but that is why i wrote the book. i wanted them to know that not one and i wanted the american people to know that story. >> who was malcolm kerr current? >> he was a professor at ucla who left the year before i arrived work on my phd. he had grown up in beirut. though he had made a very distinguished career for himself as a scholar of the middle east, he went home in the early
truths when you think about nations and companies, there are certainly rise and fall stories, and hopefully the united states is not on the fall side of this. but political campaigns are really lousy times to think about the hard truths of what's happening. one of the hard truths about our panel is we're five white guys. [laughter] we've tried to figure out how, how we could divvy -- we're four tall guys and doug. [laughter] and we're very well aware of in this. you would not believe how busy -- we did have a more diverse crowd, but i just want to say for all of you who are going to e-mail and say we'd love to have a conversation with you, we know. and it's there. but what i wanted to get into today and talk a little bit about are the strategic economic choices facing the nation and what does that mean, and particularly when you talk about strategy in economics, is there something more fundamental about the way the united states is positioned in the world, what its choices are? michael porter, who's here with us and just, michael, wave so they know who you are. we're all, you
solution to the problem. so i think with so many he could have united the people of good will to address this problem and that polarized the nation and was the beginning of polarization that would never end until a civil war. >> if we could bring john quincy adams to the day, what do you think he would like and not like america in 2012? >> he would despise our involvement overseas. our attempt to dictate to society's the kind of society as they have to have. when he had the opportunity as the secretary of state to intervene, monroe would have done whatever he could in the pro-democracy movement so to speak he pointed out that these people have no history of self-government. religiously or politically they had never been exposed to self-government. their political culture and family culture did not tolerate. he said this is a lost cause we must not involve ourselves and said he would not involve us in trying to change the culture of the people in the middle east. these are people with no history, no political history or religious history of self governance. they don't know what it means.
purposes except protect purposes, in switzerland interestingly there is a huge national revolt against the superrich and don't pay a high tax rate. there are similar tensions in but terror is certainly a more extreme dynamic in the united states. >> which u.s. government policies in your view perpetuate the transfer of wealth between the middle class and the top 1%, and could you rank them in importance including for example -- >> that would take all night. >> please address and include the tax equity, inequities between herndon come, and capital gains, the federal reserve policy of low interest rates, the emphasis on spending rather than saving, the reward given to borrowers rather than savers. >> from that famous line in when harry met sally, i will have what she had and the ones i would single out, because it is so egregious to carry interest treatment. i find that amazing and i find amazing that four years of a democratic president still hasn't managed to roll that back. how can that be? and .2 i find amazing i have yet to talk to a private equity person now that how liberal and so
and awareness that the united states has a humanitarian presence in the middle east. it has not always been about access to will, close relationship with israel or deployment of military purpose -- forces for purposes of national security. americans have been there for 150 years getting to the region, and much more practical and beneficial way for the people of the region and not just for us. that is why i wrote the book. i wanted them to know and the american people to know that story. >> who is malcolm karen and what happened to him? >> he was a professor of political science at ucla who the before i arrived for my ph.d. had grown up in beirut, his parents had been on the faculty and though he had made a very distinguished career for himself in the united states as a scholar he went home in the early 80s to lead the school during a period of particularly difficult times when they route had fractured due to the civil war and the israeli incursion of 1962. the city was a mess, the school was under assault, there was a lot of danger but he believed going back and running the school and provi
in the least dense half of america's counties. this is a common phenomenon in the united states and throughout the world. the three largest metropolitan areas in this country produce 18% of our nation's gdp, almost a fifth, while including only 13 percent of america's population. the top line shows something that may be something more surprising. it's the relationship between population growth between the years 2000 and 2010, and initial population density. as you can see, until you get to the very top tenth, population growth goes up steadily with density. at the start of the 19th century, we were leaving our enclaves on the eastern seaboard to spread out and take advantage of the american wealth. at the start of the 21st century we're clustering in, we're clamoring to be close to one another. now, we see in boston the resurgence of a great city. we see in new york, in san francisco, in seattle, in chicago, all of these places, and london and paris, we see the triumph of the developed world cities. but the success of the city in the developed world is nothing relative to what's happening in t
legislated to the united states senate and then the presidency who is beginning to grapple in a much more direct way than most of us ever have to with the implications of being responsible. for our national security, for making these decisions. it's not been remarked on enough, but it's fairly extraordinary that when he was, i think, very prematurely awarded the nobel peace prize being elected president, he shows up at oslow before the nobel peace committee and delivers what i think is probably the only pro-war speech ever given in acceptance of the nobel peace prize. he argues for the necessity of war, but argues for the necessity of american power and for his responsibility to use american power in the world. i think that was a fairly remarkable speech. that coupled with the fact that there is the remote targeting of suspected terrorists says to me that people's expectations about him as a sort of passist leaning president was misguided. he's clearly not that, and nothing shows that more than his decision to go after bin laden. now, when i talk about main characters in the story, forgiv
the slave property into the territories owned by the entire nation. in 1857 in the infamous dr. scott decision, the united states supreme court affirmed the southern constitutional chief. republicans in contrast said never if. fifth republicans would allow in any territory. abraham lincoln was elected in november of 1860. a month later in the united states congress can intercession. members of congress put forth various compromise proposals. a critical portion of all dealt with the division of territory. most often there was a proposal to extend a dividing line west of the beyond louisiana purchase all the way to the border of california. now, after this process i'm going to get to my main topic why lincoln rejected the compromise which meant the territories. but their must be one thing more. i am going to talk about three different men tonight. one of you, one of them, all of you know his name, abraham lincoln when he was and what he did. the others are not so well known. you will be familiar with henry clay a great kentucky state's mind 1860 from new york state and prior to ligon's
of strategy for the united states and for other countries are parts that are used to i guess put forth those pieces that are the best for those nations, for their interest. however, there are some governments that do not and will not adhere to those things that are within the interest of the united states. if that is the case, then we have to have places that we can bring troops into at a moments notice and in a short period of time in order to be able when necessary to put forth a military piece. >> host: so you are against drawing down some of these bases around the world? >> caller: i would say i agree, some of them are unnecessary and the military has taken that into account but i'm listening to the ones that she is talking about and i'm going, that is not exactly -- >> host: which ones in particular are you concerned about? >> caller: i was listening to her talk about japan and the base in germany, i agreed. the military has looked at and taken account germany. you have a -- in north korea. north korea is not a place that people should take lightly. >> guest: thanks, kevin. there are a
pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, november 27, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher a. coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 419, s. 3254, the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 419, s. 3254, a bill to authorize aeption prosecutes for fiscal year 2013 for military activities in the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: we're going to recess, as we normally do on tuesdays, from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucu
to the united states to have a good shot at becoming successful americans who can support themselves rather than rely on taxpayers, who can and do fully participate in local, state and national political deliberations, fully participate in our culture and who see themselves and are seen by others as americans. these are things we want, these are things we should take steps to achieve. assimilation shouldn't, in my view, mean the elimination of what's distinctive about immigrant cultures. the assimilation i have in mind is compatible with immigrants changing and ideally enriching the national culture. the important thing is that newcomers and native-born americans alike have a shared sense of belonging, consider their interests to be common interests rather than antagonistic ones and be able to communicate with one another. an immigration policy that takes assimilation as one of its watch words would, i think, look different in important respects both from what we currently have and from some of the proposals that we often hear about. i think pretty obviously if assimilation is the goal, then we
to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 26, 2012 to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: at 5:30 today, all postcloture time on s. 3525 on the sportsmen's act will have expired. there will be two roll call votes at that time. the first vote will be on a motion to waive the budget act, and the second will be on passage of the bill as amended. mr. presiden
so weaken the nation, that it would be very, very prone to of foreign involvement, the british were still in canada, obviously. there were certainly foreign threats that are weakened and divided united states would have been prone to. on to the second question, which is about social media and lincoln. first of all, there was plenty of social media in 1861-1865 because it was the era in which mass communications was available. the telegraph, the railroad, the newspaper or all becoming much more prevalent. many more americans were littered and reading newspapers, so people were seeing and hearing about the carnage of the war every single day. the telegraph offices would be filled with the casualty report. the other thing that changed very, very radically was that this was also the first american war that was photographed, and people were seeing photographs of the carnage. the new york times in a very, very famous review of mathew brady studio putting up a display of war scenes said that the photograph had brought the war into living rooms. so i think that certainly wasn't as prevalent
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)